I was thinking more along the lines of the "gay identity politics" thing; I thought about changing it to "gay asylum seekers" immediately after posting it, but then decided no one would be over-sensitive enough to make a big deal out of it. Rest assured I think homosexuality is a very good reason for asylum from many countries, and consider the verdict an improvement on overall asylum policy.

I like you both as posters but this is quite tasteless. Can we not use the execution of gay men as comedic material? a respectful request. especially as this is not an INT_ forum.

"Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

"Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

If the judge actually said this I'll eat Morgan Le Fay's sporran, if she hasn't already.

That quote is awfully hard to swallow, but I saw it pop up a few other places (all linking back to dailyexpress.com):

Originally Posted by dailyexpress

Campaigners last night warned it could mean millions might try to claim they are gay to qualify for asylum in Britain. Supreme Court judge Lord Rodger said gay people’s right to live freely must be protected.

He said: “Just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically-coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates.”

Still jaw dropping, but it looks like a directly attributed quote. It will be interesting to see if it turns out to be true.

Meanwhile, the judge can stay in the dark about gay rugby teams in the US, or players like Gareth Thomas. Although I guess I do know a gay, beer drinking rugby player who also likes Kylie... so go figure.

The Court of Appeal had found that both men could conceal their sexual orientation to avoid the risk of being persecuted and neither had a "well-founded fear of persecution" which entitled them to protection under the UN Convention for refugees.

The Supreme Court justices unanimously found that the test applied by the Court of Appeal was contrary to the Convention and should not be followed in the future. Both cases will be sent back for reconsideration in light of the guidance from the Supreme Court.

Lord Hope, deputy president of the court, who headed a panel of five justices who heard the case over three days in May, said that to compel a homosexual to pretend that their sexuality does not exist or can be suppressed was to deny him his fundamental right to be who he is.

Lord Rodger said the normal behaviour of gay people must be protected as it was for straight people. He said: "What is protected is the applicant's right to live freely and openly as a gay man. To illustrate the point with trivial stereotypical examples from British society: just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates."

*This omission on the part of the Express is of course, purely intentional*